I don't have a problem with him defending his home, but I do have a problem with him shooting the one in the face after he already shot him and he fell down the stairs. Seems like at that point the kid is no longer a threat and he should have called police.

I believe the police are in the right to charge him because he went too far. At that point he was no longer defending his home but attacking, as the kid was no longer a threat to him.

The only thing that could make me re-think what I'm about to say is you having a misleading title for this thread, as I'm not even going to bother reading the article, that being said.., you've found the first one who doesn't have an issue with someone killing these two robbers, work for what you want or suffer the consequences!

The only thing that could make me re-think what I'm about to say is you having a misleading title for this thread, as I'm not even going to bother reading the article, that being said.., you've found the first one who doesn't have an issue with someone killing these two robbers, work for what you want or suffer the consequences!

You should read the article. He had disabled and shot them already, then proceeded to hear (cue Mortal Kombat Music) FINISH THEM! and shot one in the face. He even admitted to police he probably shot more times than he needed to.

You should read the article. He had disabled and shot them already, then proceeded to hear (cue Mortal Kombat Music) FINISH THEM! and shot one in the face. He even admitted to police he probably shot more times than he needed to.

Once the threat is gone it isn't 'reasonable force' to shoot someone in the head. The article I linked says he shot the one in the head, dragged his body to the side, waited for the other to come, shot her a couple times with a rifle, then she 'laughed at him' when the rifle jamed and he shot her with his pistol, dragged her to the side, then put the gun under her chin and gave her a 'good clean finishing shot'.

He then waited until the next day to call the police because he 'didn't want to trouble them on a holiday'.

Was it the kid laughing at the man? Was it sheer panic/terror? We don't know, but ultimately I tend to err on the side of caution and side with the person who had a legal right to be there: the homeowner, though not to a fault.... it shouldn't be an end-all, be all permission slip.

Why didn't the girl flee after hearing shots? Why would she instead go to the man's position? (Many reports place her upstairs). Why did the man say he may have shot more than necessary or delay in calling the police?

Again, we will literally never know for sure, short of some kind of dues ex machina mind reading. All I know is painting kids with drug issues who broke into someone's home (seemingly for laughs) as sweet little 'popular' (like that implies virtue in the slightest - more frequently the opposite) angels is a strong suit of farce. Parts of the Mail article read more like the Onion due to that slant. Not saying the man was a helpless angel either, not in the slightest, just that those particular bits sprinkled through the article are pretty ridiculous and quite likely taint the rest of it.

Did they have a weapon? This man should be charged with first-degree murder, and his words make that pretty obvious.

He claimed he thought they did, which was enough for him to shoot them until they were down, but not to 'finish them', the way the castle laws are written. And First-Degree is pre-meditated. So unless you can prove he knew they were coming and he set a trap, second degree (which is what he is being charged with) is the way to go :P

Whether or not I agree with the events doesn't matter Minnesota does have a "Castle Doctrine" law for a reason, the kids likely knew there was a possibility of them being shot if they actually did break into the guys home but took the risk anyways.

Should they have been killed? Probably not, a warning shot likely would have been enough to scare them off(then the guy could report a B&E).

Edit: Now that I've finished reading the article, the guy should be charged for murder. The article claims that he told the cops he used more rounds than necessary and that alone should be enough to condemn him to prison for a good while.

I'm pretty much in the shoot-to-kill camp when it comes to this. When someone breaks into your house, you don't stop and check whether they are pretty and popular. You neutralize the threat. I don't care how pretty young and full of potential they were, they were dangerous criminals.

However, the murder charge is warranted.

I think you can believe in self defense, and believe you did the right thing based on the information you had, while still recognizing the loss of two (very, very stupid) lives.

NO.... He does not have the right to point blank execute them. He killed them with point blank shots to the head while they were barely alive. After dragging them into his basement. He then waited until the following day to alert anyone about it.

This was not self defense.... This was murder.

"but acknowledged firing "more shots than I needed to" and appeared to take pride in "a good clean finishing shot" for one teen"

Wetzel said that while the shootings happened on Thursday, Smith waited until Friday to report the deaths, explaining that "he didn't want to trouble us on a holiday."

Smith said he dragged Brady's body into his basement workshop, then sat down on his chair. After a few minutes, Kifer began coming down the stairs and he shot her as soon as her hips appeared, he said.

After shooting her with both the Mini 14 and the .22-caliber revolver, he dragged her next to Brady. With her still gasping for air, he fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium," the complaint says.

The man probably went too far, what with the intentional killing-after-disabling and all, but I can't really feel sorry for the would be robber teens in the slightest. There's innocent stupidity, like joyriding in mom's car across the farm; and there's legitimate stupidity, like trying to rob somebody's house. I did some stupid shit as a kid, mostly involving fire and once involving a car (but no fire), and wouldn't have been the least bit upset if something horrible happened to me.

"Minnesota law allows people to use deadly force when protecting their homes - but prosecutors claim he used more than necessary."

I think the guy should be found not guilty. If those kids broke into his house with or without knowledge of their state laws, they deserved it. They look like normal kids, I don't know what business they had breaking in in the first place.

Him opening fire to defend his home. That's ok with me. The situation didn't give time for him to find out why they are on the property. If they were to die from his self-defense, then that's it even if it would've been unfortunate.

However, if he shot them and they can't fight anymore, that's where the shooting should end. If they were to continue fighting, this would be a different story.